bit of a different viewpoint here ...
... obviously the watches should be tested and scrutinized in a stringent procedure, and that includes mechanical tests as well as eye-inspection, before leaving the factory. that's no question.
to me it's often mindboggling how many reports about cosmetic flaws can be read concerning almost every brand, both factory-new watches and returns from service, which could easily be detected in a 10-second eye-inspection with a loupe: fingerprints on the inside of the crystal, lint or scratches on the dial, blobby luminova on the hands etc.
but the mechanical testing is obviously just as important. the problem is what tests should be performed, how are they performed, and who does it.
i think the only feature of a watch that can be reliably tested is the water resistance. i believe that test is performed in a pressurized vacuum chamber with the fully assembled watch (but i would be happy to be corrected on this). the watch that passes this test would be delivered to the customer in unaltered condition.
next up: shock protection. see, there are many watches out there which claim that they are particularly shock resistant. but the only way the company could test a specific watch for this claim would be to smack it really hard ... yeah, i figured that. i wouldn't like that either :o)
another thing: smooth operation by rotors, date wheels and chronograph hands. classical weak spots of mechanical movements, these components rely on friction, or the control thereof, to work properly. but how are you able to consider the break-in period, where gears settle and lube gets smeared out, in the factory?
what else? antimagnetism. the quintessential feature is a soft ferromagnetic shielding around the movement. so even if you subject the movement to a magnetic test field, to check whether the movement has been affected you have to open and subsequently reseal the magnetic shielding. you do not get the watch in the condition where it has actually been tested, but in an altered state.
lastly? accuracy. pheeew, that's clearly a whole chapter in itself. so instead of trying to really go into the meat of things, for which i am probably not even qualified, just a bit food for thought from a 10-second-brainstorming session:
- COSC is performed on movements before they are mounted into the case
- nearly all decent-quality mechanical movements can be regulated to within COSC, but nobosy knows how long they would keep that regulation
- the high-end houses in horology do not COSC their watches
- COSC-standards are possibly too forgiving nowadays, with the advancement in new materials and movement designs, and should be made tougher (like -2/+3 s/day or so)
i am still for independent testing routines, but grudgingly.
in principle i don't need a third party testing entity to certify the qualities of a certain manufacturer's watch. i would be happy with the inhouse testing routines like the JLC 1000h master test. however, for that case these two requirements should be met, which is not at all the case and probably never will be:
1. the manufacturer would have to disclose what specifically they test and to which tolerances, and then be held accountable to that. example: you buy a watch that passes the JLC master test, but it's 5 seconds slow right out of the box. this should be an aberration and be fixed under warranty, and presto.
2. the watch-buying public would have to up their expectation level for accuracy and finish and act as the enforcer. company X repeatedly sells watches which have bad quality control and/or are poorly regulated ... people should stop buying brand X. those who work sloppily would be punished by the market.
oh man, i should stop worrying and learn to love the bomb, really :o)
cheers, johannes
TicTacTalks Forum